They are planning to cut medicare it seems while forcing

[mmonk]

more people to be on private for profit insurance. I think this does it for me. As I approach the age for medicare, they are going to cut it as part of reform and work at delaying or denying a public option.

-snip-

The House bill will include all the hallmarks of a revamped health care system that Democrats have been clamoring for, including a new government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The goal, of course, is to broadly expand health coverage to the more than 40 million Americans without insurance, while slowing the steep rise in cost of medical care and improving patient outcomes with more effective treatments.

-snip-

The bill will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and will also require all Americans to obtain health insurance. But many of its key provisions, including the public insurance option, will take several years to kick in.

-snip-

That plan was expected to generate $320 billion over 10 years, with most of the balance of the price-tag being covered by cost-savings through reduced government spending on health care, particularly Medicare. And the gang has gone back to the drawing board to consider a wide menu of options.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/house-democrats-to-unveil-health-care-bill/?hp

[county worker]

1. I did not read anything about cutting medicare and forcing people to be on private insurance.

It says everyone will have to have insurance and that there will be a public option that competes with private insurance and that it will take a few years before the private option is available.


Where is the part about cutting medicare and forcing everyone on private insurance?


By reducing Medicare spending they are paying less to providers for procedures. It will be an outcome based reimbursement. It has already been put in place.

[mmonk]

2. I interpret this line as cutting:

"reduced government spending on health care, particularly Medicare". Is there something I'm not seeing clearly?

[county worker]

3. Like I said, reduced spending means paying providers less.

It does not mean knocking people off of Medicare.

The payments now are going to be outcome based. That means if a doctor preforms a procedure and the patient improves he/she will get full medicare reimbursement. If there is any other outcome the reimbursement will be less. That is one way of reducing spending.

Also if you couple Medicare with a private plan or government option those plans will cover what Medicare doesn't.

[mmonk]

4. I think it most likely means increased payments for our senior population.

[dflprincess]

26. Protect the private health insurers

but pay providers less - yeah, that makes sense :sarcasm: And I heard on the local progressive stations that it does include mandates so we can all hand more money over to the insurance companies. (I will admit I did not go back and check the bill for that myself)

What's scary is, this isn't even the compromised version of the bill - this is supposedly the ideal. How much worse will it get by the time the House is done with it?

We've been had.

[Mojorabbit]

28. Way to have providers then

cherry pick patients. You are not going to have good outcomes on whole classes of patients, ie oncology. Everything cannot be cured, patients cannot be forced to be compliant either. Plenty of docs don't take medicare now because the payments have been cut so much. I hope they have thought this out real carefully with input from actual practicing physicians.

[horseshoecrab]

5. Take a look at this site

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MedicareFactSheetFinal/

See especially the paragraph entitled
"Reduce subsidies to hospitals for treating the uninsured as coverage increases."

As people become insured under a health care plan, the government will no longer have to pay out to hospitals for treatment of uninsured people.

hope this helps. :hi:

horseshoecrab

[mmonk]

6. Yes, that would follow and give respite to our local governments

as well. That is provided it isn't offset by subsidizing the insurance companies.

[TexasObserver]

7. Recommend

[defendandprotect]

8. Specter has been trying to cut another $1 BILLION from Medicare . . .

now he's inside the health care discussions and will probably find it easier

to do!

[Cerridwen]

9. "he's inside the health care discussions"

Can you elaborate, please? I'm not being snarky. I think I've missed part of a discussion (I was off DU and not up on political happenings for about 3 months). Could you expand on that statement so I have a better understanding?

Thanks, in advance. :D

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

16. When he was a Repug did he know what the Dems were thinking . . . ??

OKay . . . now he's inside with the Dems . . . he must hear a few things --

make a few comments . . . press his agenda????

[Cerridwen]

17. Okay, thanks.

I wasn't sure if there was something happening beyond his change of political affiliation.

Thank you.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

18. No problem . . .

I've been there --

and I wasn't saying anything momentous so sorry if you were misled --

:)

[defendandprotect]

19. kick

[Cerridwen]

20. Not misled at all.

Just feeling a bit uninformed as to current events.

:)

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. At best, I think your interpretation is flawed.

 Expands Medicaid. Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for an expanded and improved Medicaid program. Recognizing the budget challenges in many states, this expansion will be fully federally financed. To improve provider participation in this vital safety net – particularly for low-income children, individuals with disabilities and people with mental illnesses – reimbursement rates for primary care services will be increased with new federal funding.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf

I've searched through the 1000+ page bill, and it allocates $2 billion to the public plan in "Y1" for startup costs including claims.

[mmonk]

22. Hope so. However, the Senate seems determined to undermine

a true public option and the politicians still talk medicare as if it is a huge fiscal problem when it basically runs at a mere 3% overhead. It seems to me to be a cost efficient model.

[inna]

11. heartily recommended!

and yes, it is an absolute DISGRACE.

i read about this weeks ago on DU ($320 billion CUTS (!!!!!) on Medicare), and was absolutely shocked.

why people are not all up in arms about it, is absolutely BEYOND me.


we are being fleeced.


(while banksters get trillions without questions or oversight). absolute disgrace.

:(

:(

[babylonsister]

12. Read this for more info:

http://webstar.postbulletin.com/agrinews/335397460497913.bsp

snip//

Senior citizens and people with disabilities will benefit from provisions that fill "the doughnut hole" over time in the Medicare Part D drug program, eliminate cost-sharing for preventive services, improve the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, fix physician payments and make other program improvements.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_house_releases_its_health-.html?hpid=news-col-blog

snip//

The Public Plan: You can download a summary sheet here. The public plan -- which is really three, or maybe four, insurance plans -- pays Medicare rates to hospitals (and Medicare rates plus five percent to physicians -- thanks to Marci Wheeler for the correction) for the first three years and then begins negotiating on its own. It is open to anyone with access to the Health Insurance Exchange.

And this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6068091&mesg_id=6068091

House Bill Looks Good So Far.

[mmonk]

13. If we could get the House Bill, I would be somewhat satistied.

However, we have the Senate. If you can figure out a way to bypass them, let me know.

[redqueen]

14. They have to reconcile, and we have the HELP Committee in the Senate.

No way to bypass them, but we should be trying to influence them.

[babylonsister]

15. afaik, the Senate hasn't released a thing, so I'm not borrowing trouble

until they do.

[mmonk]

21. It doesn't look good so far.

[babylonsister]

25. Where are you looking? Pls. share what source you're gleaning

your info from, thanks.

[mmonk]

27. Examine the Senate's group of seven:

Mr. Baucus is scheduled to gather at 4 p.m. Tuesday afternoon with the core group of negotiators in his committee, including Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, and four Republican senators, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/house-democrats-to-unveil-health-care-bill/?hp

From an earlier post of mine that received no comments nor replies:

N.C. hands shape reform

WASHINGTON -- North Carolina's two senators have become heavily involved in the effort to reform health care in the United States.

U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican, has put out one of a half-dozen alternative visions for what a new national health-care system might look like.

And U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, has drawn inside-the-Beltway attention for blocking quick action last month on a so-called "public option" insurance plan that would be run by the government.

-snip-

Burr and Hagan both sit on the Senate health committee that now is writing the reform package, a massive piece of legislation that some estimate could cost up to $600 billion over 10 years. President Barack Obama has made it one of his top domestic priorities and wants a bill passed this year.

http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/1604352.html


The following videos:

And an interesting set of videos from Bill Moyers Journal with an interview with Wendell Potter, formerly of Cigna coming clean about the health insurance industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmEwhakknkk&feature=rela...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMSk4nfnce8&feature=rela...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAKtW1W6Y74&feature=rela...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxT8xHlIZt4&feature=rela...

Note that insurance lobbyists are in on the bill and that Max Baucus has former staffers that are insurance industry lobbyists.

My opinions come from the fact that many in the Senate want to insure insurance company profits more than they do an affordable system. I'm not saying something won't pass. But it will be far from addressing our core problems.

[Political Heretic]

23. I'm reading the bill right now and the executive bit refers to expanding medicare to 133% of poverty

Or is that not an expansion?

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

24. Does it have a way to contain the premiums the co's are charging us?

"The bill will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and will also require all Americans to obtain health insurance.

So what happens if we don't fall below the income level for the public plan, and have a pre-condition, or are over 50? So what's to stop the insurance companies from charging me 50% of my monthly budget for a premium?